Saudi Arabia’s bid for the 2034 FIFA World Cup faced immediate and sustained international scrutiny due to the kingdom’s human rights record, leading to widespread condemnation from global organizations. FIFA confirmed Saudi Arabia as the sole bidder and host on December 11, 2024, at an Extraordinary Congress, with 203 member associations voting unanimously after no rivals emerged.
The process drew criticism for its accelerated timeline, lack of competition, and perceived favoritism, as FIFA altered rules to restrict bids to Asia/Oceania and bundled the 2034 vote with the popular 2030 bid. This structure effectively silenced opposition, prompting accusations of a predetermined outcome that overlooked ethical concerns.
Human rights organizations’ condemnations
Amnesty International labeled the evidence a” moment of great peril” for mortal rights, advising that without reforms, the event would enable suppression, demarcation, and worker exploitation. A coalition of 21 groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Saudi diaspora association ALQST, issued a common statement asserting FIFA’s decision ignored” grave pitfalls” to residents, migratory workers, and suckers. HRW stressed” wide labor abuse” pitfalls under Saudi Arabia’s kafala system, where over 10 million settlers face exploitation without union protections. Amnesty blamed FIFA’s mortal rights assessment by AS&H Clifford Chance as a” color,” forgetting crucial issues like freedom of expression, LGBTQ demarcation, and forced evictions despite UN attestation of abuses under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Labor rights and migrant worker concerns
International labor advocates, including migrant groups from Nepal and Kenya, condemned the bid for perpetuating abuses seen in Qatar 2022. Business & Human Rights Resource Centre noted Saudi Arabia’s failure to address labor law enforcement gaps, predicting deaths and exploitation during stadium construction across 11+ sites. ALQST’s research revealed pre-bid violations at tournament venues, including arbitrary arrests. Trade unions called for binding safeguards, absent in FIFA’s process, emphasizing the kafala system’s role in enabling forced labor and passport confiscation.
Media and press freedom backlash
Saudi Arabia’s 2034 FIFA World Cup shot has burned serious counterreaction centered on the area’s rough media terrain and systemic suppression of free expression, raising profound enterprises over press freedom during the event. Intelligencers and mortal rights groups have stressed that Saudi Arabia’s history of suppression, detentions, and intimidation creates a hostile terrain for media content, clashing sprucely with FIFA’s declared mortal rights commitments.
The 2018 assassination of intelligencer Jamal Khashoggi exemplifies the fatal pitfalls faced by journalists critical of the governance, a shadow brewing over the forthcoming event. Journalists Without Borders and Amnesty International denounce the absence of any visible safeguards to cover independent journalism, emphasizing that Saudi Arabia governs media narratives through tight suppression of journals, TV, and digital platforms.
The Saudi government’s control extends to chastising differing voices; news outlets face restrictions on critical content regarding political or religious issues, and activists or intelligencers who essay to report singly threat arbitrary arrest and persecution. Saudi Arabia scores extremely low on global press freedom rankings, frequently listed among the worst countries for media rights, with the ‘ Freedom on the Net’ indicator presently placing it in the “ Not Free ” order, and ranking near the bottom encyclopedically. These conditions peril the abecedarian journalistic principle of independent and transparent content essential for an event as encyclopedically watched and politically significant as the FIFA World Cup.
Political and governmental responses
European Parliament members and U.S. lawgivers have raised strong opposition to FIFA awarding the 2034 World Cup to Saudi Arabia, citing the area’s swell in prosecutions reaching at least 196 bymid-2024 and reports of border killings in Yemen where Saudi forces allegedly shot Ethiopian settlers. In November 2024, U.S. Legislators Ron Wyden and Dick Durbin prompted FIFA to reject the shot, warning of pitfalls to citizens, workers, athletes, excursionists, and press, particularly women and LGBTQ individualities without mortal rights guarantees.
German MEP Daniel Freund and Danish MEP Niels Fuglsang blamed the opaque process, calling for an EU-wide boycott if violations persist during medications. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe( PACE), through Rapporteur Mogens Jensen, condemned FIFA’s” opaque process” and lack of binding mortal rights commitments on labor rights, free expression, andanti-discrimination, following a letter from PACE’s Culture Committee Chair Linda Hofstad Helleland demanding enforceable conditions.
Norway’s football federation (NFF) transacted support for the shot, aligning with ethical enterprises over Saudi Arabia’s record. Australia’s confederation withdrew its implicit interest beforehand, explicitly citing mortal rights and governance issues as disqualifying factors. These conduct reflect broader football body dubitation, though not universal. In discrepancy, the UK’s Football Association (FA) reluctantly championed the shot after entering assurances on addict safety, but faced significant domestic counterreaction from activists and suckers criminating it of insincerity given previous Qatar examens. Also, Denmark’s DBU expressed sanguinity for Vision 2030 reforms despite internal reservations, while Germany’s DFB shifted to support with calls for advancements. Sweden’s SvFF backed the shot amid adoptions from protesting members, pressing divisions.
Fan and civil society campaigns
Fan groups and activists launched boycott desires, framing the shot as sportswashing. All Out and Sport & Rights Alliance demanded reversals, prognosticating” spoiled ” events without reforms. Social media amplified calls, with #BoycottSaudi2034 trending amid enterprises for women, LGBTQ individualities, and protesters.
FIFA’s defense and criticisms of governance
FIFA defended Saudi Arabia’s 2034 World Cup shot as completely biddable with its strategic bidding process and mortal rights frame, emphasizing the area’s amicable support from 203 member associations and a record-high evaluation score of 4.2 out of 5 from FIFA’s independent review. FIFA President Gianni Infantino stressed the event’s eventuality as a” huge occasion” for football development, structure heritage, and global concinnity, asserting that ongoing commitments from the Saudi Arabian Football Federation including a Human Rights Strategy with threat assessments and stakeholder engagement align with UN Guiding Principles.
The association rejected calls for independent emigrant worker monitoring in January 2025, citing Saudi Arabia’s pledged weal system for event systems, and maintained that the accelerated, uncontested process assured effectiveness while clinging to statutory conditions.
Critics, led by Amnesty International, dismissed these assurances as” sham commitments,” criminating FIFA for conducting a defective human rights assessment by AS&H Clifford Chance that barred critical issues like ratified convention violations, freedom of expression repression, and LGBTQ demarcation. The assessment reportedly limited stakeholder input, forgetting consultations with affected migratory workers, dissentients, and civil society, leading to a” whitewash” of Saudi Arabia’s record of prosecutions, arbitrary detentions, and labor exploitation under the kafala system.
Calls for boycott and reforms
Reactions culminated in boycott demands from HRW, Amnesty, and unions, insisting on reforms like kafala abolition and union rights. Without these, they argued, Saudi Arabia proves unfit, legitimizing abuses via spectacle.
Documented violations
International reactions reveal deep concerns over Saudi Arabia’s bid, rooted in documented violations making it undeserving of FIFA 2034 hosting. Widespread calls for boycott underscore the need for human rights prioritization to protect sport’s integrity.